About your Search

20130421
20130421
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
it in that way that it results in eation, you must follow the law and value of government napse and provide the overside as well as appropriation and follow the constitution. that is radical stuff, isn't it? >> it used to be bipartisan and wide agreement on that. but we lve if an different era, where four years the democrats refuse to pass a budget at all. when they did the budget would raise taxes an additional $1.5 trillion on top of $1.7 trillion in tax increases that have already happens. it doesn't meaningfully cut spending in any real well. i never balances. it des nothing to save and reform entitlement, social security and medicare to preserve the programs for seniors and make sure they are strong and vibrant going forward to zo next generations can rely on that. >> lou: the senate, much of its time taken up with the house. on gun control. senators toomey and manchin, coming up with a deal. >> i don't remember the last time that it became a big deal for two senators to reach a deal. but that is sort of the way it has, that the environment now down there. is that deal of theirs betwee
: it is extraordinary when you put it in that way that it results in ecation, you must follow the law and value of government napse and provide the overside as well as appropriation and follow the constitution. that is radical stuff, isn't it? >> it used o be bipartisan and wide agreement on that. but we live if an different era, where four years the democrats refuse to pass a budget at all. when they did the budget would raise taxes an additional $1.5 trillion on top of $1.7 trillion in tax increases that have already happens. it doesn't meaningfully cut spending in any real well. i never balances. it does nothing to save and reform entitlement, social security and medicare to preserve the programs for seniors and make sure they are strong and vibrant going forward to zo next generations can rely on that. >> lou: the senate, much of its time taken up with the house. on gun control. senators toomey and manchin, coming up with a deal. >> i don't remember the last time that it became a big deal for two senators to reach a deal. but that is sort of the way it has, that the environment now down the
, u must follow the law and value of government napse and provide the overside as well as appropriation and follow the constitution. that is radical stuff, is't it? >> it used to be bipartisan and wide agreement on that. but we live if an different era, where four years the democrats refuse to pass a budget at all. when they did the budget would raise taxes an additional $1.5 trillion on top of $1.7 trillion in tax increases that have already happens. it doesn't meaningfully cut spending in any real well. i never balances. it does nothing to save and reform entitlement, social security and medicare to preserve the programs for seniors and make sure they are strong and vibrant going forwardto zo next generations can rely on that. >> lou: the senate, much of its time taken up with the house. on gun control. senators toomey and manchin, coming up with a deal. >> i don't remember the last time that it became a big deal for two senators to reach a deal. but that is sort of the way it has, that the environment now down there. is that deal of theirs between the two of them som
times writing about what he called immigration fear. country and stronger role of law, passed copperheads of reform. -- past comprehensive reform. then there is this summary from the new york times editorial. there is a better way to be safer. pass an immigration bill if terrorists, drug traffickers, and gang bangers with sharp meters in the immigrant haystack, then shrink the haystack. get 11 million people on the books, find out who they are. the issueur calls on of boy scouts of america we welcome jim to the conversation from oklahoma. good morning. the gay crowd wants to push how they live on uni. they should be able to decide their own rules and the government should be completely out of it. just like the gay marriage thing. if they want to get married, fine. if a certain church doesn't want to marry them, then so be it. the government should stay out of the whole issue. that's it. host: part of the debate this week on what to do with the alleged bomber involved in the killing of three bostonians over this past week. the headline, republicans want the boston bombing suspe
rights. we gave that information out to our officers and i think all law enforcement was operating under those rules of engagement. >> back to the apartment real quickly. there were devices found in the apartment but you can't comment on what? >> no, i didn't say that. i can't comment on any evidence that was found there. sglp anything that was found in the apartment. are you confident that these two were acting alone and that there are no more suspects out there? >> i'm confident that they were the two major actors in the violence that occurred. i am very, very sure that during this thorough investigation we'll get to the bottom of the whole plot. that's all i can say right now. i told the people of boston that they can rest easily. the two people who were committing these vicious attacks are either dead or in custody. we cleared dozens of packages that had been dropped by people fleeing the scene. so everything was treated suspiciously. in a situation like this, bombers often target first responders so we were expecting another device. we handled that very, very carefully. the eod team
as the law enforcement officers streamed out of the community following the capture of the suspect. the vigil gave the residents a chance to gather together and thank the officers that strive to keep them safe. tucker, aly, clayton? >> tucker: thank you. >> clayton: we have an interesting picture this morning, of what it was like to live in this home. this mother raising these two children there in this family, also their daughter. this comes to us this morning from alyssa kilzer, 23-year-old who used to go to their mom's house, a is a lan, spa. >> alisyn: sort of. >> clayton: if you call it that. she used to run a day spa. moved it to her home. people would come to your home. you are around the family on a regular basis. she went there to get facials and beauty treatments for five or six years. >> alisyn: yes. >> tucker: it's chaotic home. filled with the sounds of arguing and food cooking. and clothes all over the place. she describes a family that became increasingly religious over the years that she -- >> clayton: radical. >> tucker: exactly. >> alisyn: the boston bombers had two sisters.
by will you -- must include the contributions of the transgendered? by law. you will have to have pages on transgendered contributions. people who were crossed over sex, or dressed in the other sex. clothing. isn't that absurd? isn't that totalitarian? i thought the purpose of the textbook was to tell the truth, not make groups feel good. but as i point out in the book, leftism is overwhelmingly rooted in feelings. >> host: dennis prager is the author. "still the best hope" is the name of his recent best seller. louis from florida, you're on the air. you're talking with dennis prager. >> caller: i'd like to ask mr. prayinger and his ilk what he just said about truth, why should people believe the bible when that's the biggest novel ever written? who believes the earth is 5,000 years old? how can you follow a book that tells you the world is 5,000 years old and hisclass commentary about the christian schools and the seminary, how does he say something like that and he wants to be honest? i know this man is a right winger, and he wouldn't fifth credit to anybody, but my main question is,
both would have to sign before to become law. they would have to agree on executive order, sipri court nominees, decisions as commander-in-chief of the military. each would have their own vice president for a small personal staff but all other appointments the executive branch or the judiciary would be a single joint appointee. with that they could make decisions so much more quickly. you sort of have a democrat nominating a democratic person or republican for republican. you would have a bipartisan nominee and there wouldn't be a confirmation in the position will be filled much more quick way. in all likelihood they would divide up primary responsibilities. one might direct health care and the other education. one might focus on our relations with european countries and the other with asian countries but when it would come time to make decisions they would have to agree. all decisions would have to be shared decisions. joint decision would make it more representative decision-making. instead of having a republican president champing the platform of the republican party or a democratic
an ngo if it runs afoul of laws on foreign money. i think the main thing would be what does the organization itself want? the democracy and human rights activist in egypt was company on this a year or two back and said, ask of the organization. it's probably the best judge of its own risks and what it needs. so that's all i can suggest on that. >> i'm with the investigative project on terrorism to our organization tracks domestic islamists that are filled with the rugged such as the council -- islamic society of north america and we've been able to see if there's been a close correlation between these groups and lobbying the obama administration. it come out and support the brotherhood in egypt and elsewhere in the middle east. do you think that they are having an impact on how the administration deals with indigenous christians in the muslim world? >> quick canvass. we would have no idea on, you know, what are the dynamics, just observe the phenomenon, the current administration, with the bush administration as far as are doing with iraq did not raise this issue, did not fo
or full strength of the law, will happen almost immediately and then from there, the citizenship will be probably a decade or more down the road. >> and the president's role in all this? what do you hear from the congressman? >> the congressman has been probably the best -- the biggest democratic critic of the president on immigration, particularly in the congress. people a few immigration who said obama helped them. but he got himself arrested protesting the deportation policy in 2010. from what i understand it's been difficult for the president to figure out what his role is because he really is supposed to be doing the cheerleader role for the house and senate rather than actually being presidential in the sense of -- >> or negotiating. >> or negotiating. >> keep in mind when this was last being, the same concept was last being discussed in the bush administration, there were members of both the department of homeland security and the commerce department up on the hill every day when they were doing this i'm not seing that now. >> thank you very much for your time, appreciate
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)